Intracorporeal square-to-slip knot technique for vesicourethral anastomosis with single-layer anatomical reconstruction and anterior urethral sphincter preservation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15574/PS.2025.1(86).7378Keywords:
prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy, vesicourethral anastomosis, intracorporeal square-to-slip knots, urethral sphincter preservation, single-layer anatomical reconstruction of the vesicourethral anastomosisAbstract
Radical prostatectomy (RP) remains the gold standard for prostate cancer (PCa) treatment. In recent years, the number of RP procedures has increased, alongside the number of high-risk PCa (HR-PCa) patients choosing this treatment. Consequently, improving functional outcomes while maintaining oncological safety is crucial for this patient group. The rapid development of minimally invasive RP methods has yielded promising new techniques and approaches. However, vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA) continues to be one of the most sophisticated and challenging aspects of the operation.
Aim: to describe and evaluate the safety and efficacy of a VUA technique using intracorporeal square-to-slip knots (IKS), single-layer anatomical reconstruction (SLAR), and anterior smooth muscle urethral sphincter preservation (AUS-P) during extraperitoneoscopic RP (ERP) in terms of urinary continence (UC).
Materials and methods. This study included 36 patients with localized HR-PCa who underwent ERP in 2022 and 2023. The bladder neck preservation (BNP), puboprostatic ligaments (PPL-P), and maximal functional urethra length (MFUL-P), as well as VUA with IKS technique, SLAR and AUS-P, were performed in all cases.
Results. The statistical analysis indicated the safety of the modified VUA technique. The operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), and hospital stay (HS) medians were within the expected range. Only 15% of patients experienced postoperative complications, all of which were classified as grade I according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. No VUA stenosis was observed after 12 months. 80.6% of patients achieved UC within the first 3 months after urethral catheter removal (CR).
Conclusions. The ISK technique for VUA with SLAR and AUS-P appears to be a safe approach, with promising UC outcomes. Larger studies are needed to confirm the true UC benefits associated with this technique.
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
Albisinni S, Limani K, Hawaux E, Peltier A, Van Velthoven R. (2014). Evaluation of the Single-Knot Running Vesicourethral Anastomosis 10 Years After Its Introduction: Results from an International Survey. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 24(9): 640-646. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2014.0129; PMid:25192249
Antonelli L, Afferi L, Mattei A, Fankhauser CD. (2023). Anterior Sphincter-sparing Suturing of the Vesicourethral Anastomosis During Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Open Sci. 52: 109-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2023.04.007; PMid:37213237 PMCid:PMC10192927
Asimakopoulos AD, Mugnier C, Hoepffner JL, Piechaud T, Gaston R. (2012) 'Bladder neck preservation during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a standardised technique using a lateral approach'. BJU International. 110(10): 1566-1571. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11604.x; PMid:23106764
Bianchi L, Turri FM, Larcher A, De Groote R, De Bruyne P, De Coninck V et al. (2018). A Novel Approach for Apical Dissection During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: The "Collar" Technique. Eur Urol Focus. 4(5): 677-685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.01.004; PMid:29402756
Cathelineau X, Cahill D, Widmer H, Rozet F, Baumert H, Vallancien G et al. (2004). Transperitoneal or Extraperitoneal Approach for Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A False Debate Over a Real Challenge. J Urol. 171(2): 714-716. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000103885.71434.02; PMid:14713793
Checcucci E, De Cillis S, Alladio E, Piramide F, Volpi G, Granato S et al. (2024). Ten‐year functional and oncological outcomes of a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic versus robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. Prostate. 84(9): 832-841. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24702; PMid:38572570
Covas Moschovas M, Bhat S, Onol FF, Rogers T, Roof S, Mazzone E et al. (2020). Modified Apical Dissection and Lateral Prostatic Fascia Preservation Improves Early Postoperative Functional Recovery in Robotic-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Results from a Propensity Score - matched Analysis. Eur Urol. 78(6): 875-884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.041; PMid:32593529
Erdogru T, Teber D, Frede T, Marrero R, Hammady A, Seemann Oet al. (2004). Comparison of Transperitoneal and Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Using Match-Pair Analysis. Eur Urol. 46(3): 312-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.05.004; PMid:15306100
Falagario UG, Knipper S, Pellegrino F, Martini A, Akre O, Egevad Let al. (2024). Prostate Cancer - specific and All-cause Mortality After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: 20 Years' Report from the European Association of Urology Robotic Urology Section Scientific Working Group. Eur Urol Oncol. 7(4): 705-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.08.005; PMid:37661459
Haga N, Kurita N, Yanagida T, Ogawa S, Yabe M, Akaihata H et al. (2018). Effects of barbed suture during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on postoperative tissue damage and longitudinal changes in lower urinary tract outcome. Surg Endosc. 32(1): 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5649-z; PMid:28643068
Hamada A, Razdan S, Etafy MH, Fagin R, Razdan S et al. (2014). Early Return of Continence in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Using Modified Maximal Urethral Length Preservation Technique. J Endourol. 28(8): 930-938. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2013.0794; PMid:24739066
Lu H, Yu C, Yu X, Yang D, Yu S, Xia L et al. (2024). Effects of Bony Pelvic and Prostate Dimensions on Surgical Difficulty of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: An Original Study and Meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 31(12): 8405-8420. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-024-15769-w; PMid:39080137
Ippoliti S, Colalillo G, Egbury G, Orecchia L, Fletcher P, Piechaud T et al. (2023). Continence-Sparing Techniques in Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Endourol. 37(10): 1088-1104. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0188; PMid:37597197
Köhler N, El-Bandar N, Maxeiner A, Ralla B, Miller K et al. (2020). Early Continence and Extravasation After Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy - Interrupted vs Continuous Suturing for Vesicourethral Anastomosis. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 16: 1289-1296. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S278454; PMid:33380800 PMCid:PMC7767697
Martini A, Falagario UG, Villers A, Dell'Oglio P, Mazzone E, Autorino Ret al. (2020). Contemporary Techniques of Prostate Dissection for Robot-assisted Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 78(4): 583-591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.017; PMid:32747200
Mazaris EM, Chatzidarellis E, Varkarakis IM, Dellis A, Deliveliotis C. (2009). Reducing the number of sutures for vesicourethral anastomosis in radical retropubic prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol. 35(2): 158-163. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-55382009000200005; PMid:19409119
Meng MV, Stoller ML. (2002). Laparoscopic intracorporeal square-to-slip knot. Urology. 59(6): 932-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)01517-0; PMid:12031384
Michl U, Tennstedt P, Feldmeier L, Mandel P, Oh SJ, Ahyai S et al. (2016). Nerve-sparing Surgery Technique, Not the Preservation of the Neurovascular Bundles, Leads to Improved Long-term Continence Rates After Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 69(4): 584-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.037; PMid:26277303
Nakonechnyi YA, Mytsyk YuO, Borzhievskyi ATs. (2024). PCA3 score prognostic value for identifying postoperative ISUP grades 4-5 in localized peripheral zone prostate cancer with a posterior tumor growth dominant pattern. Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine). 4(85): 65-70. doi: https://doi.org/10.15574/PS.2024.4(85).6570
Rajih E, Meskawi M, Alenizi AM, Zorn KC, Alnazari M, Borhan W et al. (2019). Long-term urinary functional outcome of vesicourethral anastomosis with bidirectional poliglecaprone (Monocryl®) vs. barbed polyglyconate suture (V-LocTM 180) in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Can Urol Assoc J. 14(3). https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5959; PMid:31599716 PMCid:PMC7053370
Samavedi S, Abdul-Muhsin H, Pigilam S, Sivaraman A, Patel VR. (2014). Handling difficult anastomosis. Tips and tricks in obese patients and narrow pelvis. Indian J Urol. 30(4): 418. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.142070; PMid:25378824 PMCid:PMC4220382
Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T, Salomon G, Engel O, Michl U et al. (2011). Full Functional-Length Urethral Sphincter Preservation During Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 60(2): 320-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.02.040; PMid:21458913
Seetharam Bhat KR, Seetharam Bhat KR, Moschovas MC, Onol FF, Sandri M, Rogers T, Roof S et al. (2020). Trends in clinical and oncological outcomes of robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy before and after the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against PSA screening: a decade of experience. BJU Int. 125(6): 884-892. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15051; PMid:32173990
Sengupta S, Ischia J, Webb DR. (2011). Single-layer anatomical reconstruction of the vesico-urethral anastomosis during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). BJU Int. 107(2): 340-343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09960.x; PMid:21208370
Sood A, Jeong W, Peabody JO, Hemal AK, Menon M. (2014). Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am. 41(4): 473-484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2014.07.002; PMid:25306159
Stolzenburg J, McNeill A, Liatsikos EN. (2008). Nerve‐sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 101(7): 909-928. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07544.x; PMid:18321324
Tan G, Srivastava A, Grover S, Peters D, Dorsey P Jr, Scott A et al. (2010). Optimizing Vesicourethral Anastomosis Healing After Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Lessons Learned from Three Techniques in 1900 Patients. J Endourol. 24(12): 1975-1983. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0630; PMid:20973740
Velthoven RFV. (2008). Optimization of the Vesicourethral Anastomotic Model in Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Performed on Large Prostates. J Endourol. 22(9): 1999-2000. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.9758; PMid:18811520
Vis AN, van der Poel HG, Ruiter AEC, Hu JC, Tewari AK, Rocco B et al. (2019). Posterior, Anterior, and Periurethral Surgical Reconstruction of Urinary Continence Mechanisms in Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Description and Video Compilation of Commonly Performed Surgical Techniques. Eur Urol. 76(6): 814-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.035; PMid:30514568
Von Ahlen C, Geissler A, Vogel J. (2024). Comparison of the effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies based on complication rates: a retrospective observational study with administrative data from Switzerland. BMC Urol. 24(1): 215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-024-01597-3; PMid:39375695 PMCid:PMC11457412
Walz J, Epstein JI, Ganzer R, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Kaouk J et al. (2016). A Critical Analysis of the Current Knowledge of Surgical Anatomy of the Prostate Related to Optimisation of Cancer Control and Preservation of Continence and Erection in Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy: An Update. Eur Urol. 70(2): 301-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.026; PMid:26850969
Weld KJ, Ames CD, Hruby G, Humphrey PA, Landman J. (2006). Evaluation of a novel knotless self-anchoring suture material for urinary tract reconstruction. Urology. 67(6): 1133-1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.12.022; PMid:16750256
Williams SB, Alemozaffar M, Lei Y, Hevelone N, Lipsitz SR et al. (2010). Randomized Controlled Trial of Barbed Polyglyconate Versus Polyglactin Suture for Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Anastomosis: Technique and Outcomes. Eur Urol. 58(6): 875-881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.07.021; PMid:20708331
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The policy of the Journal “PAEDIATRIC SURGERY. UKRAINE” is compatible with the vast majority of funders' of open access and self-archiving policies. The journal provides immediate open access route being convinced that everyone – not only scientists - can benefit from research results, and publishes articles exclusively under open access distribution, with a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 international license(СС BY-NC).
Authors transfer the copyright to the Journal “PAEDIATRIC SURGERY.UKRAINE” when the manuscript is accepted for publication. Authors declare that this manuscript has not been published nor is under simultaneous consideration for publication elsewhere. After publication, the articles become freely available on-line to the public.
Readers have the right to use, distribute, and reproduce articles in any medium, provided the articles and the journal are properly cited.
The use of published materials for commercial purposes is strongly prohibited.
